IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.49518 OF 2016 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN:
SRI. BHARAT KUMAR B JAIN S/O LATE BASTIMALJI JAIN AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/A NO.45, 5TH CROSS PATEGARAPALYA BANGALORE-560040.
(By Mr. M M ASHOKA, ADV.,) AND:
1. RECOVERY OFFICER-I DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNA;
KRISHI BHAVAN HUDSON CIRCLE BANGALORE – 560001.
2. CHIEF MANAGER BANK OF BARODA MALLESHWARAM BRANCH NO.74, 7TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560003.
3. SRI G K PRAKASH S/O LATE G R KRISHNA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/A NO.6-104, 10TH MAIN III BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560011.
4. SMT D R LALITHA W/O SRI D RAMANATHA GUPTA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS … PETITIONER R/A SWARNA KAMAL NO.38, I CROSS, GOVIPURAM EXTENSION BANGALORE-560019.
5. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED CONSUMER FINANCE DIVISION NO.40, 22ND FLOOR, FOUNDATION HOUSE CKC GARDEN, NEAR MISSION ROAD BANGALORE-560027 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR KEERTHINATH S.
… RESPONDENTS (By Mr. GOPALAKRISHNA R HEGDE ADV., FOR R2 R1 – SERVED, Mr. V B SHIVAKUMAR ADV., FOR R3 R4 – SERVED Mr. B C AVINASH ADV., FOR R5) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE SALE PROCLAMATION NOTICE DTD.12.8.2016 ISSUED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEX-E WITH RESPECT OF SCHEDULE PREMISES UNDER THE OCCUPATION OF THE PETITIONER AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.M.M.Ashoka, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Gopalkrishna.R.Hegde, learned counsel for the respondent.No.2.
Sri.V.B.Shivakumar, learned counsel for the respondent.No.3.
Sri.B.C.Avinash, learned counsel for the respondent.No.5.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for respondents submitted that the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) is appealable under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).
4. In view of the judgment laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘UNITED BANK OF INDIA VS. SATYAWATI TONDON AND ORS.’, (2010) 8 SCC 110, writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy i.e., an appeal provided under the Act.
5. It is needless to state that in case the petitioner resort to the remedy mentioned above within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today, they shall be entitled to the benefit of principles contained under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Interim order granted earlier shall continue.
Sd/- JUDGE SS